51. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2606 by Greywizard on October 22, 2006 at 5:17 am

I wrote to Andrew Brown shortly after his article appeared to express my concern over the highly critical nature of his review. I don't have his permission to share his words here -- so take this as my understanding of them -- but one of the things that concerns Brown is that Dawkins presents religion as the only problematic ideology, as though atheist ideologies can not also be destructive and dangerous. Religion tends to absolutise its point of view, and make statements and claims that are totalising. But so do other ideologies, like Stalinist communism, or Maoist communism, or Pol Pot's attempt to begin over again from year 0, as if the Cambodians didn't already have a tradition which, like it or not, at least provided a basis for more human (and humane) relationships than a brand new absolutising ideology. That's why the Tamil Tigers are relevant here, because their absolutism is not (at least not clearly) religious.

The other side of the picture is that religions can also provide the basis (if not the good reasons) for humane and humanising relationships. What Brown is arguing, I think, is that dong away with religion would not necessarily make for a better world, if some of the horrors of the 20th century are considered. Indeed, things might very well turn out for the worse, since atheism is not, in itself, necessarily a humanising force, and may not provide a basis for establishing a harmonious society.

52. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2518 by Greywizard on October 21, 2006 at 3:54 pm

There is something troubling about this discussion -- at least to me. One of the things that Dawkins, I think, is trying to do, is to encourage critical thinking about the world, human life, society, etc. Whatever we think about we should do it thoughtfully, carefully, and critically.

Eagleton's point, whether he makes his case or not, is that Dawkins himself too often expresses himself uncritically. I think, as I have already said, that Eagleton is often wrong about where he sees shortcomings in "The God Delusion." Ophelia Benson pointed out a short while ago, that there is reason to doubt Eagleton's claim that "For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief." One sign of this, however, may be that it was within Christian culture that science, even though it sometimes had a rough ride, developed. And biblical writers themselves, as Don Cupitt claims (with some reason) in his latest book, had at least digested Plato, if not Aristotle. So, while it may not be entirely true, I think there is some (rather slight) basis for the claim.

So, it just won't do to dismiss religious claims without doing the hard work of thinking, and sometimes, I think, Dawkins does gloss over some of the harder work, and does not exercise the same amount of critical thought about the beliefs he is dismissing as the does in his scientific work. He's not a theologian or a philosopher of religion, and possibly he hasn't really gone in depth into some of the questions that religious beliefs raise for those who have thought deeply about these things. If he hasn't, then we need to be able to say so. One of the things that troubles me about this discussion is that the responses to Eagleton's criticisms are often more dogmatic, if anything, than many theologians I have read.

I admire Dawkins -- have done for years -- and I think he has many valuable things to say in his new book. I do think, however, that it has its shortcomings. No, you don't have to have a PhD in theology to write about god. Nor do you have to have PhD is philosophy to write about religion. But both theologians and philosophers, for all that, have been talking about these things for a long time, and they have also thought, some of them (even theologians!) deeply. I think occasionally that Dawkins' book would have been better if he had bothered to read some of them, and ponder them just a little more.

Of books about atheism I think Julian Baggini's little very short introduction (in the OUP series) is especially good. I like what he says under the heading "Honk if you're an atheist." "In summary," he writes, "the aim of this book is to provide a positive view of atheism, one which does not make the mistake of thinking that atheism can only exist as a parasitic rival to theism, or that atheism is essentially negative about a whole range of beliefs other than those concerning God's existence. ... Atheists can be indifferent rather than hostile to religious belief." (und so wieder)

Perhaps Dawkins' more negative approach is necessary at this time. I think some of his critics fail to recognize how dangerous religion has become today. But if we're going to beat religion at the polls, we're go to have to do it by being smarter, more critical and more sensitive to human needs. I'm sorry to say, I don't see a lot of that -- there are some significant and important exceptions -- here.

53. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2398 by Greywizard on October 21, 2006 at 5:45 am

Yorker, Sorry to have (mildly) offended you. Didn't mean to offend, just to make a point in response to the point you made. Truth to tell, of course, a lot of theology is bullshit, but there is bullshit and then there is bullshit.

As I read along through the posts, Hume's words kept coming back to me. At the end of "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" he says this, and clearly Dawkins would agree.

"When we run over the libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Of course, we do not want to begin burning books, for of the burning of books we have an inkling of what may follow. Eagleton obviously feels there is still some substance left in theology, that there is a sophistication that goes beyond the simplistic theism of the fundamentalists, and that this can make a contribution to life. He may not share in the beliefs himself as Clive suggested, but he is loath to dismiss it out of hand without a hearing.

The epistemological question is this: Is there a simple and direct way of separating reasoned statements from non-reasoned or irrational ones? So far epistemology hasn't come up with a clear dividing line between the two. If we could discern the boundary and describe it, the things that Eagleton complains of could be dismissed as readily as Hume dismisses all but reasoning concerning quantity and empirical reasoning. Eagleton's point (I suspect, though it is concealed under a lot of questionable verbiage) is that unless and until we have defined the boundary conditions clearly, merely sweeping everything one disagrees with into the fire really doesn't answer all the questions that people have asked and tried to answer about religion. Certainly, Hume didn't, since by his own standards much of his Enquiry would have to be committed to the flames, being neither experimental nor mathematical. What about Dawkins?

54. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2346 by Greywizard on October 20, 2006 at 5:23 pm

Thanks Mike,

The point you make about the simplicity of origins is important, and, though of course I had noticed it as I read along, did not really store it away. (That's obvious, since I didn't mention it in my response to Clive.) It's as clear as can be in the case of evolution, and one doesn't stop to think twice about it anymore. But in relation to the origin of the universe, it still hadn't sunk in. Of course you're right: "Postulating a complex cause for simpler effects leads one nowhere." As I recall, J.L Mackie uses the same argument in "The Miracle of Theism." If someone remembers where, I'd be grateful. Complex origins always lead to regresses of explanation, and Richard Swinburne's assumption, for example, that God is simple is, quite simply, a non-starter.

55. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2344 by Greywizard on October 20, 2006 at 4:54 pm

Clive,

I'm not sure where I come down on multiple universes. I'm not a scientist, but I think there are probably scientific reasons for postulating multiple universes. If they are just to fill a gap, they function much like God (of the gaps).

I'm not sure whether you're talking bollocks about the difference between the way Dawkins is received in Britain or in America. I'm in Canada, and, truth to tell, atheism isn't a rarity here, and religion has a much harder ride. (By the way, what gave it away -- that I was on this side of the Atlantic rather than yours?)

Nor, let me add, am I altogether blind to Dawkins' overstatement or simplification. A philosopher by training, and for many years a priest, I find Dawkins sometimes glosses over things that need a bit more attention. But I do find him refreshing, mainly because religion is becoming such a monstrous force for evil in the world today. Perhaps it always was, but I think it is arguably more dangerous now, as Sam Harris says, that we have such terrible destructive power, than it ever was before. The other thing is, of course, that religion is becoming much more of a regressive force than it was during the latter half of the last century.

A good place to look, for those who would like to follow up on some of the questions about the anthropic principle and its function in relation to questions of human origin that don't include a god, is Dan Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," Chapter 7: Priming Darwin's Pump.

56. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2338 by Greywizard on October 20, 2006 at 3:55 pm

Thanks to Clive Bradley for keeping the discussion on track.

Of course, there are issues that need to be raised with regard to Dawkins' arguments. He is not a god! While I don't have a problem with the idea of multiple universes -- this is a widely assumed theoretical standpoint in cosmology -- there are certainly questions that we need to raise with Dawkins.

One of them, as Clive points out, is Dawkins' neglect of the positive aspects of religious faith. Dawkins objects, for instance, to the fact that many Christian organizations, as well as helping out, try to convert, but Christians have been building hospitals and bringing relief to the needy for a long long time, and we shouldn't be so small as to ignore that. (There was a time, for instance, when over 80% of the nurses in India were Christian.)

And, as Clive also points out, we need to remember that people have a reason to resort to faith solutions to their problems. Lewis Wolpert, in his book "Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast," begins his book by remarking on the way that a fundamentalist religious sect had helped his son get his life in order. It's one thing to knock the supports out from beneath religious beliefs; it's quite another thing to fill the void that religious faith quite clearly fills for many people.

John Schumaker, in his book about the role that religion plays in life, suggests, referring to Ernest Becker's "Denial of Death" that "without much-needed defense mechanisms in place, untemptered death perception would bring about total psychic paralysis." (22) This is, Schumaker believes, the basic reason that religion is so tenacious, despite all our scientific knowledge and understanding of the world. Perhaps, at the core, we are still defenseless animals, facing the void. Well, maybe, but whether or not we accept Schumaker's theory of religion, we do need to give an account of religion which accounts for the hold that it has over so many.

So, thanks, Clive, for keeping the questions alive. We can't simply dismiss Eagleton by saying that he's wrong. We need to be able to say why. We also need to rememeber that Dawkins is attempting to give reasons for disbelief, and, as Eagleton rightly says, challenges us to think (that is THINK) for ourselves. Dawkins gives the appearance of being so sure of himself that the temptation is to defend him without thinking.

57. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2337 by Greywizard on October 20, 2006 at 3:54 pm

Thanks to Clive Bradley for keeping the discussion on track.

Of course, there are issues that need to be raised with regard to Dawkins' arguments. He is not a god! While I don't have a problem with the idea of multiple universes -- this is a widely assumed theoretical standpoint in cosmology -- there are certainly questions that we need to raise with Dawkins.

One of them, as Clive points out, is Dawkins' neglect of the positive aspects of religious faith. Dawkins objects, for instance, to the fact that many Christian organizations, as well as helping out, try to convert, but Christians have been building hospitals and bringing relief to the needy for a long long time, and we shouldn't be so small as to ignore that. (There was a time, for instance, when over 80% of the nurses in India were Christian.)

And, as Clive also points out, we need to remember that people have a reason to resort to faith solutions to their problems. Lewis Wolpert, in his book "Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast," begins his book by remarking on the way that a fundamentalist religious sect had helped his son get his life in order. It's one thing to knock the supports out from beneath religious beliefs; it's quite another thing to fill the void that religious faith quite clearly fills for many people.

John Schumaker, in his book about the role that religion plays in life, suggests, referring to Ernest Becker's "Denial of Death" that "without much-needed defense mechanisms in place, untemptered death perception would bring about total psychic paralysis." (22) This is, Schumaker believes, the basic reason that religion is so tenacious, despite all our scientific knowledge and understanding of the world. Perhaps, at the core, we are still defenseless animals, facing the void. Well, maybe, but whether or not we accept Schumaker's theory of religion, we do need to give an account of religion which accounts for the hold that it has over so many.

So, thanks, Clive, for keeping the questions alive. We can't simply dismiss Eagleton by saying that he's wrong. We need to be able to say why. We also need to rememeber that Dawkins is attempting to give reasons for disbelief, and, as Eagleton rightly says, challenges us to think (that is THINK) for ourselves. Dawkins gives the appearance of being so sure of himself that the temptation is to defend him without thinking.

58. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2331 by Greywizard on October 20, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Just a comment to Yorker.

If we want to appeal to people who are deeply indoctrinated in religious beliefs, calling theology excrement is not the way to do it. Despite Eagleton, the truth is that Dawkins shows considerable respect for religion, and is even, I think, slightly nostalgic about the moderate religion of his childhood. In the TV series "The Root of all Evil?", it was clear, in his interview with Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, that Dawkins had the greatest respect for Harries' humanity. (He even refers to him in the book as a friend, I believe.) And if all religion were of this rather humane, moderately Anglican, variety, Dawkins wouldn't have much of an argument with it, though he would still, no doubt, in the interests of truth, raise some pointed metaphysical questions. But it is the dangerous aspects of religion which need to be challenged, and to do that, all religion needs to be asked for its bona fides. Dawkins' clarity of mind and argument are what is needed. When Dawkins objects to the 'respect' that people instinctively give to religion and religious ideas, he's not advising being insulting, as such, but being forthright about one's own beliefs. One of the things that you can say about Dawkins is that he is unfailingly respectful of people, but quite prepared to criticise, and if need be, condemn their beliefs. But 'excrement' simply doesn't help, somehow.

59. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2322 by Greywizard on October 20, 2006 at 2:58 pm

I have read most of the responses above to Eagleton's review. I think we need to take Eagleton seriously. Dismissing him out of hand won't qualify as reasoned discussion.

I think we need to take seriously Clive Bradley's point when he says: "I would imagine Eagleton is also an atheist. That's not his objection to the book. I think if people are going to rebut his argument they need to show either that Dawkins does know more than Eagleton claims about theology, or that it's not necessary to know in detail about theology in order to attack it." Just saying so doesn't make it so, and it is one of the premises of Dawkin's book that theology is, in fact, not a knowledge discipline at all, because there is nothing for it to be about.

And that is precisely the point at which Eagleton needs to be challenged. He can't, for example, make a kind of blanket claim that we all live by faith as though theological ideas don't make special epistemological claims. "Even Richard Dawkins," he says, "lives more by faith than by reason." Does he want to claim that theological claims are all of piece with scientific beliefs or the beliefs of natural reason (that we live in a world of other persons, animals and physical objects)? Obviously, to prove anything we start with a basic set of minimum beliefs. Of course, members of that set may themselves be objects of proof against other background beliefs. Is this what Eagleton means by the word 'faith'? He just can't fling the word around without justifying his use to cover everything from belief in the existence of mosquitoes to the existence of a god.

Of course, no one is denying that there are sophisticated ways of understanding religious beliefs. Even the atonement (in Christianity) can be given meanings which try to keep it insulated from (say) Abraham's (attempted) sacrifice of his son. The trouble is that this is one of the fundamental ways in which the Christian atonement is represented. After all, as John says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only son ..." This language is reflected in Hebrews in speaking of Abraham, who by faith offered up his only son. And so on. Indeed, Anselm, in "Cur Deus Homo," makes it clear that Jesus, as God's son, is the only sacrifice that will satisfy God's honour. Etc. etc.

But perhaps Eagleton's most egregious claims have to do with the idea of God's existence. Now, here's the key sentence. Speaking of the Jews' or Christians' faith in God, he says: "They had faith in God in the sense that I have faith in you." And he has just said that they do not suppose that God is something which exists, as might a supreme architect of the universe, but ... And then the claim about faith in God in the same way that we have faith in other people. But, surely, at least as a minimum, having faith in someone includes belief that that someone exists, is someONE, in other words. But then he goes on to say: "For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is." Now, surely, if faith in God is the same as faith in other people, then this is precisely the sense in which God must be a person, or doesn't consistency weigh with Eagleton at all?

But when he says, speaking of God: "He is, rather [than an existent entity or principle], the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing," isn't this something like Einstein's God -- not the theistic god of traditional Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but something much more like Dawkins desribes in the first chapter, as the religion of the scientist? "This, not some super-manufacturing," says Eagleton, "is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator." I'm not so sure. I think that, traditionally, Christians had something much more descriptive in mind when they spoke of God as creator.

My point, though, in the end, is that we can respond to Eagleton, point by point, if need be, as to why his argument just won't wash, and why his condemnation of Dawkins, just because Dawkins is not willing to delve into all the subtleties of Christian or Jewish theology, is so terribly inadequate. Indeed, Eagleton rather makes Dawkins' point, that liberal theology simply leaves the back door open, and all sorts of wierdos and fundamentalist 'faith-heads' (to use Dawkins' term) will simply walk through and trample on all those intricate and beautifully woven carpets -- because both the subtle and intricate theology that Eagleton respects and admires, and the literalistic nonsense of the fundamentalist faith-heads have the same source in writings centuries old. And, at the moment, it's the fundamentalist 'faith-heads' who seem to be calling the tune.

60. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2290 by Greywizard on October 20, 2006 at 12:33 pm

Let me have first go.

Perhaps Professor Eagleton should have read a book entitled "How to Read a Book."

This is perhaps the most ferocious review of any book that I have ever read. I don't think that's an exaggeration. How much justice is there in Eagleton's asessment of Dawkins' book?

Well, one thing is clear. If you are prepared to read a lot of contemporary theology, you will find exactly the kind of peculiar gobbledegook that seems to be the bass signature of this review. For instance, the idea that perfect freedom is to be had from service of God. Like so: "To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment." The question of course is to what does 'him' refer? Remember, Dawkins' book is entitled "The God Delusion." Is there a transcendent him to which the word 'God' refers? (Why, I wonder, except to avoid the Whiggish Zeitgeist, does Eagleton avoid less gendered way of talking about God?)

I was just reading Richard Rubenstein's "After Auschwitz." In fact, I had just read this, when I read Eagleton's review: "Tillich claims the theistic God is dead and deserved to die because He opposes human freedom." (87) It is really disingenuous of Eagleton to pretend that this kind of thing has not been discussed amongst Christian theologians, as though all this about 'the service of God is perfect freedom' is not simply so much theological fluff -- good enough for the pulpit perhaps, but not for a serious discussion about the being of God (or gods).

Eagleton thinks that he is describing traditional Christian doctrines. Surely this is simply false. Take what he says about the doctrine of the atonement, one of the most seriously off-putting aspects of traditional Christian doctrine. But traditional Christians took Isaiah seriously, and interpreted the death of Jesus as in fact God's act for the sake of his people. And much Christian theology of the atonement has endeavoured, not entirely successfully, to avoid the inhuman connotations which Dawkins, quite rightly, takes very seriously. It may have been the Romans who killed Jesus -- though Christians traditionally blamed the Jews, and, in the gospels, try very hard to exculpate Pilate -- but it was really God who was bringing about, through the death of Jesus, the salvation of mankind. So, the claim that "It was the imperial Roman state, not God, that murdered Jesus," is prevarication. Besides, Eagleton still hasn't answered the question: Who is God?

Eagleton says (in a peculiarly Soviet style terminology) that "the Roman state and its assorted local lackeys and running dogs took fright at his message of love, mercy and justice." There is absolutely no evidence for this, though good homiletic stuff.

Maybe I'll come back to this, but that's enough to start with. Really, Eagleton's theological illiteracy is a bit astounding, given his pretensions.

61. There is no God, sayeth Dawkins

Comment #2150 by Greywizard on October 19, 2006 at 8:38 am

I'm not sure what Monkey Man is doing on this discussion list. Does he have a mission to convert the heathen, I wonder?

However, I'd like to go back to his first post, where he says:

"If I'm wrong and there is no God, I'll never know.If I'm right, well, all of you are in for a very bad time. I'll pray for you."

I suppose he recognises this as a version of Pascal's Wager. But of course Pascal had it wrong. Why, first of all, does Monkey Man assume that the god he believes in is such a monster as to give 'a very bad time' to those who do not believe in him/her? Perhaps this god sometimes doubts his/her own existence and needs a bit of a confidence boost, and is very angry, like a jealous lover (good biblical precedent there), when he/she doesn't get it! But, second, why on earth should he believe that he believes in the right god? After all, there may be a god he does not believe in who will give him 'a very hard time' for not believing in him/her. And just saying, as he does in his latest, that "As for knowing which God is the right God and so forth. It's a long personal story that started with me questioning the validity of evolution. Didn't make a whole lot of sense to me." What sense does it make gratuitously to throw in questions about the validity of evolution into the issue of which god is the right one? Long personal story or not, it's hard to see the relevance.

I'm not going to mock you or hate you, Monkey Man, though your parting shot -- 'I'll pray for you' -- is mocking in itself. You seem to have an odd idea that atheists mock and hate those who disagree. What we would like to see is people take a bit more time to think things through, and put a lot more weight on evidence instead of long personal stories -- or old myths.

However, more to the point, perhaps, Monkey Man, you should read Dawkins book, instead of entering a discussion which you obviously do not understand, and have no wish to.

62. There is no God, sayeth Dawkins

Comment #2053 by Greywizard on October 18, 2006 at 11:43 am

Thanks to Nadeau for his reference to the Toronto Star review. It's even worse that Watson!!! And that takes some doing!

I have never, in my life, read something that expresses is five or six hundred words as much idiocy and wanton hubris as Patricia Pearson's review of The God Delusion (the less said about Francis Collins the better). There is practically nothing that she gets right. Did she really read this book?

Take the one line: "Stephen Jay Gould was right: science cannot comment on God." As I say, what wanton hubris! Clearly, for all the best reasons, no doubt, Gould wanted to shield science from the attacks of religion, and wanted, too, to preserve a field for religious 'experts' to wander freely in. (But one does have to sympathise with Dawkins' brusque dismissal of theologians.) Unfortunately, it is as clear as clear can be, and Dawkins makes it even more clear, that the claim of non-overlapping magisteria just won't do. Quite aside from the fact that there are people who don't subscribe to religious beliefs who not only are moral, but have reasons to be moral, the fact is that religions differ so widely on moral questions that to give the field over to religion is to give morality over to unending warfare -- not such a moral ourcome, one might think.

As a Canadian (though not raised or educated in Canada) both the Globe and the Star reviews confirm my conviction that Canada is out of the running in the intellectual sweepstakes!

At least we can take pride in the fact that a significant number of Canadians are not religious.

63. There is no God, sayeth Dawkins

Comment #1773 by Greywizard on October 16, 2006 at 4:33 pm

When I first read this review in the Globe and Mail, my reaction was one of shame, that this should be included in Canada's national newspaper (as the Globe brags on its masthhead). It is possibly the most inatriculate review of The God Delusion yet published. Not only does Watson confuse the anthropic principle with natural selection, he seems to think that Dawkins 'ignored' a couple of rather recondite historical events which (according to Watson) show that he deliberately underplays the role of the church (and therefore religion) in bringing about the wonderful consequence of democracy. (What a curious idea, that something I know about someone else must have 'ignored'.)

The rest of the review reeks so much of sarcasm that's it hard to tell whether Watson really thinks that Dawkins makes any contribution at all to the question the truth or falsity of religious claims. For example, Watson's claim that Dawkins seems to have dealt with all the philosophical arguments against god's existence: I don't think even Dawkins would claim that. (At least I hope not, since Michael Martin spends over 400 pages on philosophical issue around atheism.) Does Watson really know what he's writing about?

Watson's parting shot is really astonishing. He seems to suggest that money spent on solving basic scientific questions is wasted, and will issue in nothing at all. Now, Patrick Watson, that's faith for you!